The paradox of intolerance (lemmy.kde.social)

submitted 1 year ago by five@lemmy.kde.social to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Original post: https://lemmy.world/post/5353095

all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

A little while back I saw someone recontextualize the paradox of intolerance in a very nice way. They basically said "tolerance is part of a social contract." So if you live in a society that has tolerance as part of its social contract, and someone is intolerant, then they are rejecting the social contract and it's not hypocritical to censure them for that.

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's smart - I never thought about handling it through Hobbes.

Another way that I found to handle this is through some pseudo-utilitarianism. Like this:

Tolerance is scalar, not binary; you can have more or less tolerance in a society, but it's never zero or complete. And the goal of a tolerant society is to maximise the amount of tolerance in itself, in a sustainable way for the future.

When you remove a discourse from public spaces, you're decreasing the overall tolerance of the society. However, the spread of intolerant discourses also decreases it. So a tolerant society should weight those two things, and remove intolerant discourses from public spaces only as much as necessary.

The net result is similar, in spirit, to Popper's paradox of tolerance: the society should give itself the right to curb down intolerance, but it shouldn't use this right willy-nilly.

[-] 3h5Hne7t1K@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sure. Although 'tolerance' here needs stricter defition. I would argue that the proponents of censorship are few. The victim is discourse itself, and by extent, regular imperfect people.

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

This is by no means a perfect definition, but I think that "tolerance is the acceptance of someone's intrinsic attributes, appearance, behaviour and utterances, without acting or speaking against the person because of those things" should be a good start.

The victim is discourse itself

I'm pleasantly surprised that someone caught this up - originally the argument was about freedom of speech, that's why it focuses so much on discourses.

[-] 3h5Hne7t1K@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

Ever think about where these people come from? Isolation.

The mass censorship strategies of today only serves to divide the extremes. It fosters friction.

In my view, a sane (sanest?) policy would be to use the law as a framework of what is acceptable.

Getting billionares to silence people we do not like is not virtuous, whether it be media smear canpaigns or deplatforming.

We should care about free speech on our platforms. It is the cornerstone of civilization.

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023

21 points (65.2% liked)

Comic Strips

12411 readers

3015 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
!memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lawrence@lemmy.world